Anna

I just noticed this, so forgive me for going on about this in my previous post. So by now you know these are my sentiments too. So WHY the need for us to have to explain the generation?? The truth is simple. Jesus' illustrations were simple. That is why for example the concept of the trinity does not ring true. The overlapping generation theory is beginning to sound like what people do to try to explain it (the trinity).

Unfortunately, past experience has taught us that considering this scenario is not so out of place.....

Unfortunately I find it a problem (the overlapping). I understand it, including your very good relay example, but I cannot see logically what this has to do with the word "Generation". I cannot see that this is possibly what Jesus could have had in mind. I find it a desperate stretch. I say this because as the "original" generation was running out explanations were needed. Desperate times, call for desperate measures. Of course, as JWInsider says, this could go on for a long time as we could have overlapping generations to infinity.....I hate to think what will happen IF this second generation runs out too. Basically I echo JWInsiders sentiments that: is this really what should be keeping us going? Do we really need this to stay in the truth? I am surprised that you are trying to defend this overlapping concept. I can tell you are a quick thinking, reasonable and very intelligent person. Up to now, I have had full faith in the GB, even after their 1995 explanation. But I must admit this overlapping thing has slightly gone too far in my opinion and compromised my faith in them.This is not to say I do not appreciate what they have done in behalf of the Kingdom so far. I am grateful for all the work they have done, and I truly believe this organization does have God's backing. But this overlapping thing I just cannot buy. We just had our circuit assembly about faith. And of course there was no mention of the generation, and actually not even how close we are to the end, as this really shouldn't have anything to do with our faith. In which case I find it odd that the GB thought it necessary to try to explain it, if our faith is not (or shouldn't be !) dependent on it. The only explanation I have for it is I see them having dug themselves into a hole.......and now trying to find a way out.....

Is stating ones opinion judgemental?

No, of course not, but I can read the stuff he has written.

A most interesting discussion. Hoping to pipe in sometime. Busy with the assembly tomorrow though.

What is wrong with that? All it was, was an illustration, and a good one at that. There was no religious doctrine involved. People like you my dear Theodore give JW's a bad reputation of being dogmatic and cult like.

Baloney! I'm afraid this girl is going to lose a lot of money in lawyer's fees. She is wasting her and everybody else's time.

I didn't want to sound to be mean, it's just that I don't think he is following in Christ's footsteps. One thing is calling yourself a Christian and another is following Christ's example. Many people call themselves Christians. I was shocked Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner calls himself a Christian. Words are cheap.

I don't either Isn’t this similar to what Russell and his associates did? It might sound like a good theory for our day too, but it would not work in practice. Although we try and emulate the first Christian congregations, in some areas it just isn’t feasible or practical. If this was “allowed” then we would soon find ourselves fragmented into splinter congregations moving from one to another depending on which congregation supported our idea. We would have “believers in 1914 Congregation” (JW 1914 for short) and “ supporters of 587 congregation” ( the JW Jonsson group) etc. etc. take your pick. We would end up pretty much the same as Christendom. Isn’t that how various splinter groups of Christendom’s denominations started, from autonomous congregations? Interestingly this is how today’s Bible Students do it too. By the way, did you know that the Chicago Bible students still exist? Albeit a small number. They have been like that since they split off from Rutherford. Not going anywhere really, and definitely not preaching the God news of the Kingdom. I have spoken to a few of them and everyone believes whatever they want to. They pride themselves with this so called “freedom in Christ”. And there’s the problem I think. You have hit the nail on the head - "The unavoidable dogmatism in the response" which then leads to all kinds of unpleasantness. I read your post about how apparently there is a bit of a commotion among the helpers at Bethel recently. Sounds like something like that is going on already! This would be great if that is how it would work in practice, but the problem I see with that concept is what I already mentioned above. It’s a nice theory! Nice theory! Hahaha, funny! So in summary, what I think you are saying is that you believe the GB should not have the sole authority over the interpretation of scripture. Am I right? When questioned about this topic at the ARC hearing G. Jackson admitted that he did not believe that they were the only spokespersons for God, but he did say that THEY felt responsible for dispensing the spiritual food, i.e. doctrine/interpretation. I think you are familiar with the transcript, here is the portion I am talking about: Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth? A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role. This kind of arrangement would not allow for for the suggestions you make above I don't think. Another interesting statement from Br. Jackson is one I underlined below: ......"what you need to understand with regard to our organisation is it is a faith-driven organisation. This is not an organisation of lawyers or those that are overly concerned with legal matters. So our primary allegiance is to Jehovah God. Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction. So we have responsibilities as guardians to make sure that everything is scripturally acceptable". Any comments on that?

You totally misunderstood. That's not what I was saying. Of course she was not waiting 40 years to come back, I doubt she was waiting to come back at all, she was out, and for all intents and purposes was going to stay out permanently. But this just goes to show that we should never judge anyone's situation, because something in the life of that woman changed, and against all odds she came back. If she wasn't truly repentant, wouldn't it have been easier for her to stay as she was?

Hahaha, hilarious discussion going on here I know the point you were trying to make, and of course you are right because one has to consider every possible aspect so that one does not give a cause for any kind of reproach or stumbling of anyone. I "love" the artwork where everyone goes swimming fully dressed so as not to offend others sensibilities regarding modesty. This was solved by dressing everyone in white robes in the latest video shown at the convention. I thought it looked a little creepy and reminded me fof Mormon baptisms . We have become too obsessed with that kind of thing I think. Thankfully we are not all like that in real life. In the 30's our books contained illustrations of full frontal views of Eve, nipples and all. It just shows how innocent society was in comparison to now. The porn industry is flourishing on the one hand, and on the other hand people are uber sensitive to showing any kind of flesh.... Anyway, as an artist myself, I couldn't help thinking that this looked like a patchwork of various poses put together in one. At first I thought the sister in the middle with the hat was modeled on a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones.....Then I recognized the signature and was able to check the brother's Instagram account, and sure enough, he was commissioned by a family to paint them in a paradise setting using several different photographs.... So this painting is not going to get anywhere near Bethel, but hangs in a living room.....

I don't know if you are letting off steam, but it sounds like you are happy to be able to talk about it here Sorry, this is going to be a long post, might even beat some of yours, hahaha. We both know we should not be men pleasers. I don’t think it’s prudent to keep our mouth shut if we believe that talking would be beneficial. What is wise though is establishing when it is beneficial to talk and when not. The whole organization is dependent on the support and cooperation of its members, otherwise without them, the GB would not be able to do anything but sit in their offices and twiddle their thumbs, and Jehovah would have to employ the stones to cry out. Evidently Jehovah has not chosen to employ stones but humans. We have to keep in mind that the sole purpose of the organization is to be organized to preach the Good News of the KINGDOM which includes educating people about what the Bible really teaches; the fundamental truths I mean. I think we both agree on the fundamental truths. I also agree it is difficult to just “forget” about certain aspect of our doctrine when there has been evidence in the past that “we were wrong”. The problem is I am very limited in what I can discuss because in order to be able to do that, I would have to read all the pertinent material. I do not have time to do that, which means I am taking your word for it (and others). What I can do is focus primarily on what I know from practical experience. Practical experience has shown me that we are the best Religion out there. Nothing compares with us, despite what some post as evidence against that idea. There is no evangelical group quite like us. There is no church which keeps itself morally and spiritually clean like we do. As far as I am aware there is no other church that is entirely run on voluntary donations. And there is no church that is like a united world wide family in the same way that we are. And because there is no Church like us, other churches and their members have decided that the easiest way to explain away their evident failing in those aspects is to proclaim that the “church of Christ/God” is no organization, but it is alive in each individual who professes Jesus. Here is an interesting excerpt from a “Christian” website which explains this reasoning under the heading: QUESTION: How does the first century church compare to the church today? "In his letters to the first century church, the Apostle Paul commended each for excelling in the graces of God. Specifically, these first century churches were known for their faith, love, zeal, giving, knowledge, and intolerance for sin, as well as false doctrines. The first century church was united in spirit. Today's world is characterized by the last days events foretold by the Lord Jesus Christ in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Matthew's Gospel. Specifically, we are hearing of the "wars and rumors of wars," earthquakes, famines, and pestilences of which our Lord warned. It was foretold of the church in these last days, that (among many other things): The "love of many" would "grow cold." Many in the church would be "lovers of self" rather than lovers of God. Many in the faith would be "offended." The church would "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof." Last day Christians would have "itching" ears, would not "endure sound doctrine" and would have "many teachers." In other words, the end times church (the organization) will include those who profess belief in Christ but who are, in fact, children of disobedience. The Lord Jesus Christ foretold of this reality in His parable of the "wheat and the tares." Certainly, the early church had its problems, just as the church today. However, the early church was more diligent to identify and eradicate false doctrines than today's multi-denominational church. It was easier for the early church to discipline, or rid itself of those engaged in immoral activity. This could be because the early church was not as fragmented, or divided as the church of today. It is important to remember that, regardless of the times in which we live, every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of God. Every true believer is God's "building." While unity of the spirit in the local church is to be desired, Christ's Church (the organism) is not a visible building. There is an unseen church, comprised of Christ's followers, who remain true to the teachings of Christ and to the leading of His Holy Spirit. The unseen or invisible church excels in the graces of God, just as the early church did, despite the physical location of its members. Christ's Church is not a building with programs. Christ's church is comprised of those who have a vibrant relationship with our risen Lord and Savior. Though the world may not be witness to the miraculous signs and wonders, or other manifestations of the power of God that were apparent in the early church, Christ's church remains alive and well”. http://www.allaboutreligion.org/first-century-church-faq.htm Well, well…… WHAT A COP OUT! You can’t keep your church together like the first century Christians did and like Jehovah’s Witnesses do, so you resort to palming it off on to individuals! Very clever since it lets everyone off the hook. Incidentally this is what Jonsson has come to believe also, and it seems @Ann O'Maly and @HollyW too. On another website: How Did the Early Church Differ From The Church Today? “….One of the major differences between the church of today and the beginning of the church was that the early church was much more evangelistic. Maybe evangelism was taken more seriously because the Great Commission given by Jesus was still fresh in the minds of the apostles as Jesus commanded, “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” The early church did not tolerate open and unrepentant sinning as some churches do today. Many churches today accept unrepentant homosexuals and even ordained, openly homosexual pastors and members. This would have been inconceivable in the early church. The early church also met and broke bread (ate) together more frequently than the churches today. It seems that many churches have lost that “first love” that the early church had and like new Christians have today. Sadly, that first love, that zeal for God, and that evangelistic fever has faded somewhat today, but it is still not too late for revival in the world. http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/how-did-the-early-church-differ-from-the-church-today/ And another one: “…….The first Christians saw themselves as brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers to everyone who was part of the Christian community. MONEY- Many churches today spend most of their revenue on salaries, building mortgages and other material supplements to ministry. Look at any church budget and you’ll probably find 1 or 2 percent of church funds allocated to benevolence—helping poor people in need. Maybe another 5 percent, or 10 percent at best, is given to needs outside the church that on some level help the poor. But such distribution of funds runs counter opposite to how the early church spent its money. The New Testament talks a lot about giving money, but rarely—if ever—talks about giving toward salaries, and it never mentions giving money toward a building. (For what it’s worth, it also never mentions giving 10 percent, which is still a staple value in modern churches.) MILITARY - Another modern value that was unknown to the early church is militarism. Militarism refers to the “belief or desire that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.” There’s no doubt about it—militarism profoundly shapes American values. But it also shapes American Christian values. Military historian Andrew Bacevich has unearthed the roots of American militarism and has discovered that the man behind the curtain has been none other than the evangelical church. After much research, Bacevich concludes: “Were it not for the support offered by several tens of millions of evangelicals, militarism in this deeply and genuinely religious country becomes inconceivable.” But the early church was unmistakably not militaristic. Early Christians were never fascinated with the power of the Roman military; rather, they clung to the rhythm of the cross, where evil is conquered not by swords and spears but by suffering and love. In fact, the most quoted verse among early Christians was Jesus’s command that we should love our enemies…. to aggressively defend or promote national interests—we flee from our early church roots, whose allegiance to God’s Kingdom demoted their allegiance to Rome’s kingdom. Bible Study-The early church also valued the corporate study of the Bible. You may think the modern church has this one down. Most Christians own several Bibles, and church programs often contain a wide array of Bible studies and spiritual classes. Be that as it may, Christians today exhibit an unprecedented biblical illiteracy despite owning dozens of Bibles. According to one statistic, 60 percent of confessing born-again Christians can’t name five of the 10 commandments, 81 percent don’t believe (or aren’t aware of) the basic tenets of the Christian faith, and 12 percent think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife…… The early church took seriously Jesus’s statement that people can’t live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the Lord’s mouth (Matthew 4:4). And when Jesus told His disciples to teach others “all that I command you,” they did it (Matthew 28:20). I fear that our desire to get back to the early church would require a rather extensive overhaul of the shape of contemporary gatherings”. http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/4-ways-modern-church-looks-nothing-early-church Why have I bothered to quote all this (as it may be off topic). Because despite our various failings in Chronology etc. We, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, can proudly say we are doing our best, AND succeeding, in being like the first Century church. The church that Christ himself established. How much closer can one get to the genuine source than that? And all this, I believe, could not be achieved without God’s blessing, despite the mistakes we have made..... That's my simple two cent contribution in the midst of all this deep Chronology discussion

Yes, you are correct, he claims he is a "Christian". I read so much stuff I am not sure who said what anymore. I am glad I said "I was under the impression" I knew I had no time to verify it when I was writing that post....

One could also argue that on the contrary, after 40 years one could be MORE sure that the person is most likely repentant. Why else would they bother coming back if they have already done without it for so long? I see you do not really understand the reasons behind disciplinary actions or why they are implemented. The primary reason is to GAIN our brother or sister. I know, it sounds odd, but the Bible always speaks about discipline in a positive light..."those whom Jehovah disciplines he loves" Do not forsake the discipline of your father/mother so that it may go well with you" "Accept discipline in order to become wise in your future" "hold on to discipline....for it means your life" etc. etc. Now looking at it from a logical perspective, what kind of discipline would this sister have benefited from? It was already too late for any discipline! The only thing she could have been is punished. And punishment is not what discipline is about. Remember discipline is positive. She had already been punished by the consequences of what she has done. Her conscience tortured her. That was punishment enough. Now the only way was up. In contrast, someone who confesses a sin that happened only a few months ago, what kind of discipline would they benefit from? Remember discipline is a positive thing, helping someone to REGAIN their spiritual footing. The above mentioned sister had totally lost her footing, she had been on a totally different path (for 40 years). For her, she would have to start from scratch. Bible study etc. as if she was a newcomer.

I agree with you there. We should not feel that we must defend "doctrinal tradition" at ALL costs, especially if we notice that some things do not add up properly. The most prudent thing to do is keep our mouth shut and wait. (or as we say wait on Jehovah) and while we are waiting, we can perhaps let off steam in places like this. We definitely don't want to become like the Swedish brother though, who got so upset because he wasn't being heard as he would have liked to have been heard. I am under the impression he has become an atheist now. It's sad where it took him. Of course we should want to defend the fundamental truths, (even if the rest of so called Christianity do not agree with us, and many think we use dishonest and untrue methods to defend it) and I know you do not have a problem with that.

I agree with this too

I suppose because she has been judged unfavorably, she has already fallen/been brought to nothing, symbolically/ spiritually speaking. Rev 18:2 " “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a place where every unclean spirit and every unclean and hated bird lurks!" If this meant that Babylon the great has been literally destroyed, then she would not even be a dwelling place for demons etc. Nothing would dwell in her as she would be completely destroyed as if by fire. As it stands, Babylon the Great is presently a dwelling place of demons etc.

I feel you are forgetting one important thing. If we are going to use Jesus' example of the days of Noah, what role does Noah play in the illustration? Did it take him by surprise? Was he eating and drinking and busy with life? Also, would Jesus disciples be taken by surprise, to the same extent as the people in Noah's day? Obviously not, as they would be keeping on the watch. This is why we use this illustration to show the importance of GETTING into the ark, in this case what we call Jehovah's organization and proving ourselves ready. We don't know the day, but we do get to recognize the season, and we do get to recognize Noah building the ark and Lot did leave Sodom, as did Noah enter the ark.....

In fact, related to that last point, note that the article points out that 1914 was no longer even the time when Jesus "sat down" on his glorious throne as we had always explained Matthew 25:31. There was a recent discussion on this forum about the "sit then stand then sit again" sequence, which has also changed a few times over the years. 11 In the mid-1990’s, The Watchtower reexamined Matthew 25:31, which states: “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.” It was noted that Jesus became King of God’s Kingdom in 1914, but he did not “sit down on his glorious throne” as Judge of “all the nations.” But it turns out that all these issues go away, and we no longer have to create special or "less likely" translations of various Greek words, if we just take notice of the fact that ALL the references to the parousia are about the final time of tribulation and judgment. The reference to 2 Peter 3:12 is just one of many verses that highlights this same point. Note that this is about the "parousia of the Lord." (The NWT uses the term Jehovah here, and it might not be as clear therefore that the Greek refers to the same Parousia of Jesus.) I'll temporarily change it back to the Greek manuscript "Lord", and change "presence" to "parousia" and I think it will be clearer. (2 Peter 3:3-12) 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come . . . saying: “Where is this promised PAROUSIA of his? . . . 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago. . . the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. . . . 10 But the Lord's day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, . . . consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the PAROUSIA of the day of the Lord, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! In fact, our publications do not usually associate this particular "parousia" with Christ's parousia starting in 1914, but to the "end" (except that we contradict this by always using verses 3 and 4 to point to the duration from 1914 through the end). Notice this particular explanation: *** it-1 p. 595 Day of Jehovah *** That “day of Jehovah” came in 70 C.E., when, in fulfillment of his Word, Jehovah caused the armies of Rome to execute divine judgment upon the nation that had rejected the Son of God and defiantly shouted: “We have no king but Caesar.”—Joh 19:15; Da 9:24-27. However, the Scriptures point forward to yet another “day of Jehovah.” After the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile, Jehovah caused his prophet Zechariah (14:1-3) to foretell “a day . . . belonging to Jehovah” when he would gather not merely one nation but “all the nations against Jerusalem,” at the climax of which day “Jehovah will certainly go forth and war against those nations,” bringing them to their end. The apostle Paul, under inspiration, associated the coming “day of Jehovah” with the presence of Christ. (2Th 2:1, 2) And Peter spoke of it in connection with the establishment of ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness is to dwell.’—2Pe 3:10-13. This gives context, again, to the verses referenced from 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 where the Parousia is not a drawn-out time period of 100 to 150 or even 200 years, but a specific time of judgment. (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah [day of the Lord] is here. The "day of the Lord" is equated with the "parousia of the Lord." And Paul goes on to explain why: because the apostasy would come first and the Parousia would be the time of judgment against that apostasy: (2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [Gk: GLORIOUS EPIPHANY of his PAROUSIA]. We could look at every reference to Christ's parousia, and notice that it makes much more sense to translate it as an EVENT related to the judgment. When referring to Jesus' "parousia" it is always a reference to a bright, visible, unexpected event using a term that would also remind the first Greek-speaking audience of the famous parade-like event, the "royal visitation" of an emperor: *** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) *** pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.” It is never necessary, Biblically, to think of it as a drawn-out "presence." I do understand your reasoning and in many ways it makes sense. I have also considered what you posted before learning your view. But we should also consider another aspect I think, the time from Jehovah's perspective. To Him 100 to 200 years is just a few minutes. Also, as I mentioned before, Jesus talks about a time period which would make it evident to discerning ones (human perspective) that he was very near at the door (parable of fig tree) and it would be logical that this would be a relatively short time period (back to Jehovah's perspective). What puzzles me is why would Jesus have mentioned this parable if there would be no prior circumstances to his Judgment part of his manifestation, which would be as unmistakable as spring and the coming of summer. He mentioned the budding of the tree IN conjunction with the sign of the times, that the sign of the times would be as observable and identifiable as spring. Although his followers would not know the day or hour, they WOULD be able to recognize the season. And where does the preaching of God's Kingdom fit into this? Is it a coincidence that the preaching work started when it did? Even if it was planned that way, it still would not nullify that statement. (of the Kingdom being preached and then the end would come. The “new” generation of JWs, those in their 20’s and 30’s feel it won’t come for another 50 or more years, by which time they will be in their 70’s/80’s or possibly dead. But they still follow orders from Jesus and a large majority of them are full time pioneers. Others are saying “where is this promised presence of his” “things are the same as they have always been, my parents thought I wouldn’t even go to school and now I am married and have kids myself” “where is the truth in "millions now living will never die” etc. etc. then they read R. Franz’s book which drives a nail in the coffin and they leave. Not only do they leave, but many of them become Atheists, and the few who remain “believers in Jesus”, stop following in his footsteps and just become imitation Christians. But those who endure to the end will be saved…..Endure what? Perhaps the very things we are discussing here, the ambiguity of the times…what does Jesus' presence really mean in practice......interpretation of chronology…etc. etc. Just MY thoughts (in case I get slapped across the wrist by Eoin, just kidding Eoin ). Here are a few more things: Does sound puzzling. Perhaps this could be understood from Jehovah's perspective, their times HAVE ended as Jesus' BEGAN, and the countdown to their destruction had started. We know they are not just going to fade, and not go out without a fight as they are "being gathered" for the great war. I would say that this fits in with the present situation, Christendom has already been judged apostate because it has been exposed by those who found the "truth", and in practice, that judgement will be carried out when they are physically brought to nothing. OR one could also say that by their exposure, they/their teachings have been brought to nothing....This was certainly not the case a 100 years or so ago. This begs the question, what really is meant by "judgement" because judgment does not always have to be in relation to judgement being carried out/ executed, but an evaluation of a situation over time in order to decide how to proceed, (as in the case of those who will come back to a resurrection of judgement). In the case of Christ's parousia, this judgement will culminate at Armageddon, but will be preceded by a judgment where the object of the judging is found to be lacking (in order for the adverse judgement/execution to be fair and justified). That period of judging, in MY opinion could fit into the time period from Christs supposed parousia in (or around) 1914 and culminate with the execution at Armaggeddon.....

The operative sentence here is "they say". They may not even have been reading the Bible, it may still have been gathering dust on the shelves The slave adheres to the Bible in what I consider very important areas, whereas Christendom does not adhere to the Bible in those areas. You mentioned a few of them and the Praeceptor already commented on them so I won't. Whether all of the anointed are the slave or just a small group, is a minor detail. Not important. It has not changed what the Bible says, that there IS a slave, whether that be many or a few. P.S. The fact that those who "said" they wanted to read the Bible by itself ALREADY indicates that they are harboring some kind of animosity or unwillingness to follow the things the slave has written - which are in the Bible. This could be with respect to the preaching work, as it often is (too much bother) or Birthdays and Christmas for the kids (they are so left out) blood transfusions (I believe they will save my life, and I don't care if it's just temporary). Sitting on one's laurels because merely the belief in Jesus will guarantee salvation. What the belief in Jesus entails is conveniently left out.....

Thanks . He will do SOMETHING for sure, because he won't let anyone die unjustly. Not only is that a promise, but it is in line with his 4 greatest attributes.

Helpful observations. Thanks!

If I understand the following articles in the WT correctly, there are two types of coming, the first one; presence/parousia (at the beginning of the generation) being an invisible manifestation based on surrounding circumstances i.e. the composite sign and the invisible establishment of his Kingdom, and the second one his coming/erkhomai to execute judgement (future, at the end of the generation) based on a physical manifestation like you mention. Perhaps @ the Praeceptor can confirm this as he is Greek and a linguist.... WT July 2013 15 In the part of his prophecy that is recorded at Matthew 24:29–25:46, Jesus focuses primarily on what will happen during these last days and during the coming great tribulation. There, Jesus makes eight references to his “coming,” or arrival. * Regarding the great tribulation, he states: “They will see the Son of man coming on the clouds.” “You do not know on what day your Lord is coming.” “At an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.” And in his parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus states: “The Son of man arrives in his glory.” (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44; 25:31) Each of these four references applies to Christ’s future coming as Judge. Where in Jesus’ prophecy do we find the remaining four references? 16 Regarding the faithful and discreet slave, Jesus says: “Happy is that slave if his master on arriving [“having come,” ftn.] finds him doing so.” In the parable of the virgins, Jesus states: “While they were going off to buy, the bridegroom arrived [“came,” Kingdom Interlinear].” In the parable of the talents, Jesus relates: “After a long time the master of those slaves came.” In the same parable, the master says: “On my arrival [“having come,” Int] I would be receiving what is mine.” (Matt. 24:46; 25:10, 19, 27) To what time do these four instances of Jesus’ coming refer? 17 In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) We understood that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (Mal. 3:1) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. Why so? 18 In the verses that lead up to Matthew 24:46, the word “coming” refers consistently to the time when Jesus comes to pronounce and execute judgment during the great tribulation. (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44) Also, as we considered in paragraph 12, Jesus’ ‘arriving’ mentioned at Matthew 25:31 refers to that same future time of judgment. So it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings, mentioned at Matthew 24:46, 47, also applies to his future coming, during the great tribulation. * Indeed, a consideration of Jesus’ prophecy in its entirety makes it clear that each of these eight references to his coming applies to the future time of judgment during the great tribulation. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-prophecy-last-days/ 16 When does Jesus arrive? The answer is found in the context. Remember that when the preceding verses speak of Jesus as “coming,” the word refers to the time when he comes to pronounce and execute judgment at the end of this system. * (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44) Hence, Jesus’ “arriving,” or “coming,” mentioned in the illustration of the faithful slave takes place during the great tribulation. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/

I was always under the impression that the invisible part of Christ’s presence was when he came into Kingly power and kicked Satan out of heaven (1914) Rev 12:10 and then his presence coming to execute judgement, at Armageddon, obviously very visible 2 Peter 3:12 “as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat”